Certainly, Sony's 1st party titles have always been high-quality and things were no different with the Vita. They just needed more to show.

I personally feel that Sony rushed thing with the Vita, seeing as they don't have the games to attract consumers in numbers. True that they should've saved some games and shown them over a period of time after the console's launch, the Vita also required a strong line-up. Of course, the culprit here being the lack of games overall.

Though CoD and AC have the potential to increase sales for a while, if the norm is not continued and another few months pass without any good releases, it would be a similar situation as to what it is right now: Vita owners complaining about the lack of games.

I think first party have shown enough so far considering the console has been out in the west for only 6 months, they should have just staggered the releases of them over a few months rather than ending up having barren months like we're experiencing now. I don't really think it's plausible to suggest they should have showed more, as I don't believe they have the resources or budget for that.

Sony is just having a hard time attracting people to the console - But I don't believe it's down to their own game studios. There's quite a bit to play, people just don't know about them - same old problem with Sony. It still happens with services and games on the PS3, many titles don't sell as much as they should or as they can because people aren't aware of them

Of course they need a strong launch line-up, but knowing you have no games set for release in the months leading upto Sly, AllStars, CoD and AC but still going ahead and releasing tons of games on release doesn't seem like it was a very good strategy, in retrospect. They would probably have moved a similar amount of units had they launched with half the games they did. People who are keen on buying new hardware on launch rarely care about the selection of games available. So long as they have something to play they just go out and buy it cos its new. It's the months after launch that really hold their interest on the device - if there is nothing to play then buyer's remorse begins, hence why people feel more inclined to sell as they can still get back something, anything, on their investment

When you think about it, the sales of games like Katamari, Ninja Gaiden, Army Corpse of Hell, etc would have been cannabalized by games like WipEout (which btw, is the best entry in the series to date ), Uncharted and Everybody's Golf. [Maybe 3rd partys are pissed cos of that? ]. I only bought a few games on launch and settled down with them for a couple months before even thinking about buying anything else - and I'm guessing thousands of other people did the same. I'd imagine that people don't go back and check out the launch titles (they disregarded) just to find something to play - they look forward to see what's on the horizon.

Anyway, that's only one aspect where I think Sony could have done things differently. Let's see how AC and CoD do. I'm not expecting that much of a boost in sales. However, if Sony are willing to drop the price before those games come out then I bet they could shift quite a few numbers during the holiday

I don't own a Vita and even if I did, I would never do that. I was merely reproducing statements of people on PSU and in this thread as well.

I know, people will regret buying a Vita I'm not going to try and change their decisions . I was speaking from a personal point of view how much of a waste it would feel like. Even so, it wouldn't be the end of the world for me (and my investment) if Sony can't turn around the Vita ship over the next year and beyond, because I'm 100% content with playing the PS1 and PSP Final Fantasy's until the end of time . The Vita is so damn comfortable during gaming, it just makes sense !

Nice one. I was just highlighting that it doesn't bother me what others (on the forum, or in the world) do with their Vita's and that I was speaking from a personal point of view. I shall edit my post so it doesn't seem as though I was referring specifically to you

Nice one. I was just highlighting that it doesn't bother me what others (on the forum, or in the world) do with their Vita's and that I was speaking from a personal point of view. I shall edit my post so it doesn't seem as though I was referring specifically to you

Dont worry about it bro. I wasnt offended or anything like that. lol Just explaining where I was coming from.

330 Before taxes, managed to sell for 250 but I owned it for 6 months so I think of it as a rental, and I really want the 3G one but it isn't in Canada, the real thing that let me down was I didn't research before I bought so i was really disappointed about the remote play.

330 Before taxes, managed to sell for 250 but I owned it for 6 months so I think of it as a rental, and I really want the 3G one but it isn't in Canada, the real thing that let me down was I didn't research before I bought so i was really disappointed about the remote play.

That's one of my main issues with the vita marketing. For that kind of money u can get a ps3 with some things.

That's one of my main issues with the vita marketing. For that kind of money u can get a ps3 with some things.

Great tech too pricey its that simple.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

To be fair even though Sony uses cheaper materials for the PS3 than they did when the PS3 was first launched, Sony still takes quite a loss on it, and Uncharted Golden Abyss has a pricedrop coming up. I think $250 is a fair asking price for a new powerful game system that's only 6 months old considering the things that it can do, like it can perform tasks that the PS3 can't do like Party Chat, and it allows cross platform play, which no other system can boast. The PSP was $300 when it first launched, and the memory card prices were even more ridiculously high back then!

I understand your point 100% I personally believe that there isn't a market for a portable console like that. Its impressive hardware and its not priced bad when u look at the specs but when ur average consumer looks at it they see 249.99 49.99 and the cost or a memory card. Turns a lot of people off I think sony needs to get back to the basics in the future kinda how nintendo did back in 2006.

To be fair even though Sony uses cheaper materials for the PS3 than they did when the PS3 was first launched, Sony still takes quite a loss on it, and Uncharted Golden Abyss has a pricedrop coming up. I think $250 is a fair asking price for a new powerful game system that's only 6 months old considering the things that it can do, like it can perform tasks that the PS3 can't do like Party Chat, and it allows cross platform play, which no other system can boast. The PSP was $300 when it first launched, and the memory card prices were even more ridiculously high back then!

$199 would be a lot better at launch to say the least. Since you said "no other system can boast", look up the game called... hmm... Skylanders: Spyros Adventure.

$199 would be a lot better at launch to say the least. Since you said "no other system can boast", look up the game called... hmm... Skylanders: Spyros Adventure.

a 199 wifi model would be steller, the problem with the vita is there are so many features being unused, the whole rear touch pad shouldve been scraped in order to lower the costs cause tbh when i played IMO it just was a hassle and i'd turn it off.

a 199 wifi model would be steller, the problem with the vita is there are so many features being unused, the whole rear touch pad shouldve been scraped in order to lower the costs cause tbh when i played IMO it just was a hassle and i'd turn it off.

I believe in the concept of it, and the use could be pretty good. However, it'll take games that are taking it to its fullest, and those will be few and far between. So I agree, they could have done without it. That would have created a little more space for a better battery, and dropped the price to $179-$199 at launch.

Since you said "no other system can boast", look up the game called... hmm... Skylanders: Spyros Adventure.

I said that no other system can boast cross platform PLAY as in synchronous online multiplayer between two different systems, Skylanders: Spyros Adventure has cross platform data sharing, I'm not sure how you missed that.

Because you don't understand what cross platform play means apparently.

Anyways, what games are you referring to with your incorrectly used term?

I would appreciate it if you project your ignorance somewhere other than at me. And I would caution you against feeling that others are limited to your preferred use of words and phrases because the words of English and/or specific lingo may be a lot broader that what your bloated, gelatinous, ego would allow you to realize. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try to imply to me that you understand the material of my posts better than me, but it's getting redundant and you should find something constructive to do instead.

Anyway FYI the the Vita supports cross platform play between PS3 and Vita, currently only Hustle Kings, Wipeout 2048, both of which have PS3 counterparts, can have online multiplayer sessions between players playing on a Vita and players playing on PS3.

You said that Sony was the only one to boast the ability to have cross platform play, but you DIDN'T say anything about it being multiplayer. So yes, you used the term incorrectly since cross platform play is a lot more than just "multiplayer".

You said that Sony was the only one to boast the ability to have cross platform play, but you DIDN'T say anything about it being multiplayer. So yes, you used the term incorrectly since cross platform play is a lot more than just "multiplayer".

Yes. I forgot that I had to have your approval for the things I post to be "correct."

If you had said multiplayer between the two systems, then it would make the post completely different. Cross platform play ISN'T solely a "mulitplayer" feature. MLB The Show 12 has cross platform play, which ISN'T multiplayer. There wasn't anything negative about my post. I was just replying further on about the claim that only Sony has cross platform play, which it isn't. If they are the only one to have multiplayer gaming between two different platforms, that's a little more specific.

If you had said the multiplayer aspect, then I wouldn't have even replied debunking your other claim at all. Goodness. I know what you mean now, since you have now posted it. We can go on.

If you had said multiplayer between the two systems, then it would make the post completely different. Cross platform play ISN'T solely a "mulitplayer" feature. MLB The Show 12 has cross platform play, which ISN'T multiplayer. There wasn't anything negative about my post. I was just replying further on about the claim that only Sony has cross platform play, which it isn't. If they are the only one to have multiplayer gaming between two different platforms, that's a little more specific.

If you had said the multiplayer aspect, then I wouldn't have even replied debunking your other claim at all. Goodness. I know what you mean now, since you have now posted it. We can go on.

I agree, from what we've seen on AC it looks very good for a portable game. It uses the same engine as AC3, and from the footage so far it looks good. CoD on the other hand we haven't seen anything, I hope its just because its just that good they want it show it off just before release... The Vita should be able to run the CoD engine. Would of been nice if MP/spec ops/zombies was linked to cross play with PS3 but the SP story was different. But I really doubt that one, or at least MP leveling should cross over

Hope it does turn out good, so once a price cut comes along the Vita has some solid games and it'll be cheaper, sells increase and more devs will be attracted to make games. Hopefully japan sales will pick up round the holidays/early next year from the RPGs coming out like the F2P MMO's n such.

From my view of COD I think the Vita should be able to crossplay multiplayer with the PS3 version. Hell they already let laggy split screeners play why not Vita users. No doubt they would have to be near a great wifi connection but I see no reason they couldn't play with PS3 users online as you suggest. Being able to do that and link your MP accounts and rank up and so on...would be supper nice and would really help the Vita sells take off. I mean any 10+ million copy seller franchise should help move some consoles if they utilize the connections correctly. Those bundles will probably do well this Christmas if they both get out in time (I doubt COD will). Once they are off the market I imagine a price drop will be necessary. Get a Monster Hunter/Kingdom Hearts game with a price drop...sales should follow.

Remember as soon as PS1 emulation comes down the library of games grows exponentially!! I'm sure Sony is counting on that quite a bit....could be why you aren't seeing tons of first party studios working on them....those people are probably working quite a bit on new IPs for the PS4 launch next holiday. That said I don't see Sony's game plan on helping this device. Is there something with the Gaikai deal that could be done on a Vita to bring more gaming....guess I don't know...otherwise I don't see a lot of games down the pipe.

I think the main problem is not just sales, well it is but the other problem is Sony wants original titles & not just ports
ports would be flying in left right and center, but original games just for Vita? it costs extra so it's a little hard to convince & Vita games aren't exactly simple to make, its near PS3/360 level production games on that thing.

I think the main problem is not just sales, well it is but the other problem is Sony wants original titles & not just ports
ports would be flying in left right and center, but original games just for Vita? it costs extra so it's a little hard to convince & Vita games aren't exactly simple to make, its near PS3/360 level production games on that thing.

I guess that makes sense. Sony wants to differentiate the Vita from the PS3, which is a good idea.

I've actually been thinking about doing the same thing. And almost every week on the PS store its new Vita demos- None, new Vita game videos -None, etc.

No kidding!!! How is there not even one new game video a week for vita! ridiculous ... i want choices of games ... now i'm just waiting for all the good games to come out ... the line up was good at launch but since the library has been growing at a snails pace ... PUMP IT UP SONY ... LET'S ROCK N ROLL ...we are waiting ........................

This isn't the end of the world for the Vita. The only thing that Sony divulged is that they're having a *harder* time then they expected getting 3rd party support for the Vita. There is no evidence that implies that Sony has no future 3rd party support. Most likely they wanted to get more support from Capcom, specifically a Monster Hunter game, to spike sales in their home country. They already have many good games in the pipeline...

Thats a good list there...we know there are games coming but we don't know when. TBH I think Sony is going to rely heavily on these two AAA titles helping them sell bundles and then PS1 emulation to fill in the wholes where there is not game support. Remember PS1 titles are nicely priced to compete in the mobile/hand held market and thats a HUGE library! For hardcore gamers thats probably not enough because we want those big AAA titles but in a Japanese market and I think more of the casuals I think it will help a lot!

I still think in the end however its success will be tied for good or bad with its crossplatform functionality or lack therof with the PS3/future PS4.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.